Response...

Okay, Mrs. Coleman, you said in class that we should leave our responses in actual blog posts, so...I hope I'm doing this right.

Would it sound cheesy if I were to say that the definition of "art" is relative? I really think it depends on the viewer; I happen to find some graffiti aesthetically pleasing, but I do not think that means all graffiti is art. I think the real question here is: Where does graffiti cross the line between creative territory-marking and actual art?

Again, I think it depends on the viewer. To me, art serves a purpose: either it is pleasing to the eye, or it makes a point or tells a story. Does the word "poop" sprayed in white on a streetlight's pole fit this definition? I'd say no, and unless you are a DADAist, you probably agree. But does a full-color spray-paint landscape of the rocky mountains, which I once saw on a Wyoming train car, qualify? I believe so.

Another point to consider: The situation of those who are both 'formal' artists and graffiti artists. Keith Haring, for example, was a pop artist most famous for his graffiti on the walls of New York subway stations. Did the illegality of his medium lesson the merit of his artwork?

Back to the original question...the picture from the riverfront. Is that particular graffiti art? Perhaps it is...but it's not very good, is it?